Учебник - The Korean Language Structure, Use and Context
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
144
BEYOND SENTENCES
varieties of English often used in one and the same British TV drama.) This,
however, is the reality of language learning. Little can be done about it and
learners will just have to get used to it. To give students exposure to all
varieties of the language in the context of the classroom is neither feasible
nor economical, even though it would be ideal. Given time and exposure,
however, most learners will eventually overcome this (initial) difficulty.
Second, native speakers may speak differently from the way learners have
been taught in the classroom, because they, far more frequently than not,
contract or omit certain expressions. Understandably, learners are normally
not taught to omit or contract expressions, if ever, until they have in the first
place mastered full expressions. Most contractions or omissions tend to
occur in highly casual speech, which learners may – at least initially – have
little exposure to. Nevertheless, it is important to learn how to contract or
omit expressions when possible or even necessary.
Language is spoken in social and cultural contexts. It is the major medium
through which social interaction is carried out. Regardless of what language
is spoken and what culture or society that language is spoken in, there are
certain conventions that need to be followed in the conduct of social
interaction. Such social and cultural conventions in turn find their way into
language, particularly in the form of social formulaic expressions. Social
formulaic expressions are typically associated with routine or recurrent social
activities such as meeting, leave-taking, offering, thanking, apologizing,
requesting and the like. In English, for instance, expressions such as How
are you?, How’s it going?, Thank you, Goodbye, See you later and the like
belong to this class of expressions. That these are social formulaic expressions
is illustrated, for example, by See you later, which can be used even when
people know that they will never see each other again or by How are you?,
which is used even when the speaker is not particularly interested in the
hearer’s well-being. Thus the social formulaic expression See you later is
meant not necessarily to express the speaker’s intention to see the hearer in
the future but to bring to a close a social encounter between the speaker and
the hearer. Learners of Korean must thus make a serious attempt to learn
social formulaic expressions as early as possible. Control of these expressions
may enable learners to interact successfully with native Korean speakers,
even if their level of competence in Korean is not high. Native speakers
expect learners of their language to be able to produce and understand at
least basic social formulaic expressions, regardless of the latter’s proficiency.
(Seasoned travellers in foreign countries know very well the importance
of basic social formulaic expressions in local languages.) A command of
language etiquette and protocol will be readily accepted as a command of
social etiquette and protocol. In Korean society, one’s upbringing is also
often measured by one’s language etiquette and protocol; incompetence in
these areas reflects badly not only on individuals but also on their parents
and teachers. (Thus it may not come as a surprise that books and newspaper
145
BEYOND SENTENCES
columns have been written for Koreans themselves about correct language
etiquette and protocol.)
Finally, in addition to role-marking particles, which express the roles of
noun phrases within sentences, Korean has so-called ‘delimiting’ particles,
the use of which depends on the discourse context in which sentences are
used. In other words, just as they are ‘adjusted’ by role-marking particles
according to their roles within sentences, noun phrases are also ‘adjusted’ by
delimiting particles according to the discourse context in which sentences
are embedded. For instance, the use of delimiting particles may presuppose
something beyond or in addition to what is being explicitly expressed by the
immediate sentence containing such delimiting particles.
In this chapter, the function of delimiting particles is discussed with special
reference to the so-called topic particle -(n)un. As demonstrated below, this
particle does much more than its technical name may suggest, i.e. topic-
marking. Properties of the informal, casual style, i.e. omission and
contraction, are then identified and discussed, and also explained are some
of the factors that may contribute to the choice between the formal and
informal styles: the medium of language (i.e. spoken versus written) and the
formality of situations. Lubricators are also dealt with under the three
categories of responders, fillers and connectors. Finally, social formulaic
expressions are discussed with particular reference to the discrepancy in
nature and use between Korean and English.
Delimiting particles: topic/constrast particle -(n)un
One of the most difficult problems experienced by English-speaking learners
of Korean involves the use of the so-called topic particle -(n)un. (Japanese
has a similar topic particle, -wa, which causes an equal amount of difficulty
for English-speaking learners.) There are two main reasons for this situation.
First, English lacks this kind of particle or even something remotely akin to
it. English-speaking learners thus tend to have much difficulty in coming to
grips with its nature and use. Second, and more importantly, linguists haven’t
arrived at a complete understanding of the particle in question. (One
prominent Korean linguist went as far as to claim that solving the problem
of the topic particle would mean understanding half of Korean grammar;
this, of course, is an exaggeration.) Needless to say, it is not easy to teach
students about something that specialists themselves are not completely clear
about. The difficulty with the particle lies partly in the fact that it has more
than one function, although it is generally well understood to have a topic-
marking function. But in reality this topic-marking function alone does not
explain everything it does in natural discourse. This section, therefore,
describes its main functions in the simplest possible language.
First, it is important to find out where the delimiting particle -(n)un
appears, in structural terms, within sentences. The particle can attach to
146
BEYOND SENTENCES
noun phrases and other phrases – -nun for phrases ending in a vowel, and
-un for phrases ending in a consonant. When attaching to noun phrases, it
‘replaces’ the nominative and accusative particles and also optionally the
locative particle, i.e. kiho-nun ‘Keeho-top’ versus *kiho-ka-nun, *kiho-nun-i,
*kiho-lul-un, *kiho-nun-ul, but kiho-(eykey)-nun. In the case of the other
role-marking particles, it attaches to their end, e.g. kiho-lang-un ‘Keeho-
with-top’, kiho-hantheyse-nun ‘Keeho-from-top’ and the like. It can also
attach to other types of word or phrase, e.g. kiho-ka chakha-ki-nun ha-yyo
[Keeho-nom good.natured-nr-top do-polite.s] ‘Keeho is good-natured’ and
yenghi-ka ppalli-nun talli-ess-eyo [Yonghee-nom quickly-top run-pst-polite.s]
‘Yonghee ran quickly’.
The topic particle -(n)un indeed encodes the topic of a given sentence, as
is suggested by its technical name. This is illustrated in (1).
(1)
a. ecey yenghi-ka etten kaswu-lul manna-ss-eyo
yesterday Yonghee-nom certain singer-acc meet-pst-polite.s
‘Yesterday Yonghee met a certain singer.’
b. ku kaswu-nun ye-haksayng-tul-i acwu coh-a-ha-yyo
the singer-top female-student-pl-nom much good-lk-do-polite.s
‘Female students like the singer a lot.’
In (1a), the noun phrase etten kaswu ‘a certain singer’ is introduced into the
discourse for the first time (i.e. a new piece of information), and this is
picked up as the topic and accordingly marked by the topic particle -nun in
(1b). Recall that topic-marked expressions tend to be placed at the beginning
of the sentence (see Chapter 5), as is the case in (1b), where it is grammatically
the object noun phrase (cf. ye-haksayng-tul-i ku kaswu-lul [that singer-acc
]
acwu coh-a-ha-yyo).
This topic-marking nature also explains why the particle -(n)un is never
used with question words, as is demonstrated in (2). In (2a), the question
word mues is used to seek (new) information. The question word cannot
represent an old or topical piece of information. Otherwise, it would not
have been asked about in the first place. Thus the question word cannot be
marked by the topic particle, as in (2b).
(2)
a. mues-ul ha-ni? [becomes mwe-l ha-ni? in casual speech]
what-acc do-plain.q
‘What are (you) doing?’
b. *mues-un ha-ni?
what-top do-plain.q
‘What are (you) doing?’
147
BEYOND SENTENCES
By the same token, the answer in (3b) must represent a new piece of
information that is non-topical in the context of the question in (3a). Thus
the noun phrase that is provided in response to the question in (3a) cannot
be marked by the topic particle, either. It must instead be marked by a
role-marking particle or the nominative particle -ka in the present case,
as in (3c).
(3)
a. nwu-ka w-ass-e?
who-nom come-pst-intimate.q
‘Who came?’
b. *kiho-nun w-ass-e
Keeho-top come-pst-intimate.s
‘Keeho came.’
c. kiho-ka w-ass-e
Keeho-nom come-pst-intimate.s
‘Keeho came.’
The topic-marking function can thus be paraphrased as ‘Talking about X,
I can say Y’ or ‘Let me tell you Y about X’, where X is the noun phrase
occurring with the topic particle and Y is the rest of the sentence. In (1b),
what the speaker is saying is: ‘Talking about the singer, I can say that
female students like him a lot’.
This does not mean, however, that noun phrases must always have prior
mention in order to be marked by the topic particle. In fact, the concept of
topic, in the context of the topic particle -(n)un, must be understood to
subsume not merely topical information but also shared or background
information. This is clearly demonstrated in (4).
(4) kolay-nun phoyutongmul i-ta
whale-top mammal is-plain.s
‘The whale is a mammal’ or ‘Talking about the whale, it is a mammal.’
In (4), where a generic definition of the whale is provided, the noun phrase
kolay is marked by the topic particle -nun. The speaker can reasonably
assume that the hearer knows something about the whale (what it looks
like, where it lives, etc.), although not everyone may know that the whale is
a mammal (hence the point of the generic definition in (4)). The speaker is
providing a new piece of information about the whale, which is part of
shared or background information. In other words, the speaker is saying
here: ‘Let me tell you something about the whale; it is a mammal’.
This concept of shared or background information can also explain why
the first and second person pronouns typically co-occur with the topic particle
148
BEYOND SENTENCES
in Korean. The first person pronoun (I and we in English) refers to the
speaker and the second person pronoun ( you in English) to the hearer. In
speech situations, there are always going to be the speaker and the hearer
(the so-called speech dyad). This very fact – however obvious it may be – is
shared or background information that is accessible to the speaker and the
hearer. Thus the first and second pronouns tend to appear with the topic
particle in Korean, as in (5).
(5) ce-nun hocwu-lo imin-ul ka-pnita
I.humble-top Australia-to migration-acc go-deferential.s
‘I am going to migrate to Australia.’
If, however, kolay in (4) and ce in (5) were marked by the nominative
particle, as in (6), these noun phrases would no longer be presented or
understood as such shared or background information. In fact, they would
instead represent new information.
(6)
a. kolay-ka phoyutongmul i-ta
whale-nom mammal is-plain.s
‘The whale is a mammal’ or ‘It is the whale that is a mammal.’
b. cey-ka hocwu-lo imin-ul ka-pnita
I.humble-nom Australia-to migration-acc go-deferential.s
‘I am going to migrate to Australia.’ or ‘It is I that is going to
migrate to Australia.’
In order to do so, they would need a certain discourse context. This is why
(6a) or (6b) could easily be preceded by (7a) or (7b), respectively.
(7)
a. kolay wa sange-cwung etten tongmul-i phoyutongmul
whale and shark-between which animal-nom mammal
i-nya
is-plain.q
‘Which is a mammal, the whale or the shark?’
b. nehuy-tul-cwung-ey nwu-ka hocwu-lo imin-ul
you-pl-among-in who-nom Australia-to migration-acc
ka-nya
go-plain.q
‘Which of you people is going to migrate to Australia?’
The question in (7b) is focused on the (unknown) identity of the person
who is going to migrate to Australia. The nominative-marked noun phrase
149
BEYOND SENTENCES
cey-ka in (6b), representing new information, serves as a possible answer to
(7b). Thus the noun phrase in question cannot be marked by the topic
particle, although it refers to the speaker.
The other main function of the topic particle -(n)un is to express contrast.
This contrastive function can be paraphrased as ‘I don’t know about other
people, things or places, but in the case of X, I can say Y’, where X is the
noun phrase occurring with the topic particle, and Y is the rest of the
sentence. For this reason, the particle -(n)un should really be referred to as
the topic/contrast particle, as it is hereafter (although, for the sake of
simplicity, the abbreviation top is retained in glossing). In (8), therefore, the
speaker is indicating: ‘I don’t know what else Keeho did (tidying up his
room, mowing the lawn etc.), but I can say that he did his homework’.
(8) kiho-ka swukcey-nun ha-yss-e
Keeho-nom homework-top do-pst-intimate.s
‘Keeho did his homework’ or ‘I don’t know what else Keeho did,
but I can say that he did his homework.’
Noun phrases with this kind of contrastive interpretation tend to appear
in non-initial positions. This makes sense because, as has already been pointed
out, topical noun phrases tend to be positioned at the beginning of sentences
(e.g. (1b)). Should a noun phrase with a contrastive interpretation appear
in the sentence-initial position, it would no longer have a contrastive
interpretation but would receive a topical interpretation. When, however,
noun phrases in contrast appear side by side in the same sentence, as in (9)
(that is, when what is to be contrasted is explicitly mentioned, not merely
implied, as in (8)), they may be placed in the sentence-initial position.
(9) yenghi-nun swukcey-lul ha-yss-ko
Yonghee-top homework-acc do-pst-and
kiho-nun chengso-lul ha-yss-eyo
Keeho-top cleaning-acc do-pst-polite.s
‘Yonghee did her homework whereas Keeho did the cleaning.’
In (9), the speaker is contrasting Yonghee and Keeho in terms of tasks
performed. These two noun phrases, each with the topic/contrast particle,
appear in the sentence-initial position, because they are explicitly contrasted
with each other. Compare (9) with (10).
(10) yenghi-ka swukcey-nun ha-yss-ciman chengso-nun
Yonghee-nom homework-top do-pst-but cleaning-top
an ha-yss-eyo
not do-pst-polite.s
‘Yonghee did her homework but she did not do the cleaning.’
150
BEYOND SENTENCES
Unlike in (9), in (10) the two object noun phrases – which would otherwise
have been marked by the accusative particle -lul – are marked by the topic/
contrast particle. The speaker is thus contrasting homework with cleaning
in terms of completion.
The topic-marking and contrasting functions of the particle -(n)un can
also be attested in the same sentence, as illustrated in (11).
(11) nyucillayndu(-ey)-nun pi-nun manhi o-ciman nwun-un
New Zealand(-in)-top rain-top much come-but snow-top
cekkey w-ayo
little come-polite.s
‘In New Zealand, it rains a lot but it snows a little.’
The sentence in (11) can be paraphrased into English: ‘Let me tell you
something about New Zealand; it rains a lot but it snows a little there’. The
noun phrase nyucillayndu ‘New Zealand’ is marked as shared or background
information, whereas the noun phrases pi ‘rain’ and nwun ‘snow’ are
contrasted in terms of precipitation. These two different functions are carried
out by the same particle -(n)un.
There are many other delimiting particles such as -to ‘also’, -man ‘only’
and the like, as in (12). These, however, are not as difficult to understand as
the topic/contrast particle.
(12)
a. yenghi-to w-ass-e
Yonghee-also come-pst-intimate.s
‘Yonghee also came.’
b. kiho-man w-ass-e
Keeho-only come-pst-intimate.s
‘Only Keeho came.’
In (12a), the speaker is making a statement with the understanding that
a person or persons besides Yonghee came. This understanding (or
presupposition) is clearly indicated by means of the delimiting particle -to,
which attaches directly to the end of the noun phrase yenghi. In (10b), the
speaker understands that no one except Keeho came. This motivates the use
of the delimiting particle -man, which attaches directly to the end of the noun
phrase kiho.
Formal versus informal style: omission and contraction
As discussed in Chapter 5 (Figure 5.1), which speech level is to be chosen
depends not only on the hearer’s social status relative to the speaker’s, but
151
BEYOND SENTENCES
also on the medium of language (spoken versus written) and the formality
of speech situations (formal versus informal). Thus the deferential and plain
speech levels tend to be used in formal writing. The choice in writing between
these two levels may in turn have to do with the distinction between personal
and impersonal. The deferential speech level is the highest level of deference,
and the plain speech level the lowest (see the continuum in (63) in Chapter 5).
The plain speech level tends to be attested in textbooks, newspaper reports,
academic publications and the like, where information is communicated
to the reader in a most objective manner. Thus the plain speech level,
when used in writing, is indicative of the writer’s impersonal approach to
communication. The deferential speech level, on the other hand, tends to
be used in public notices, signs and advertising, which seek the reader’s
cooperation or attention. Thus a personal approach to communication will
be called for in such situations. It is, therefore, common to find both the
deferential and plain speech levels in newspapers, the former used in
advertisements and the latter in the remainder.
In personal or informal writing (e.g. letters to siblings or friends), on the
other hand, the polite or intimate speech level is used. Needless to say,
formality would be highly marked in this kind of writing. Any indication of
formality would be interpreted to signal (deliberate) distance between the
writer and the reader. Depending on the writer’s social status relative to the
reader’s, the choice between the polite and intimate speech levels may need
to be made along the lines discussed in Chapter 5.
In public speech situations (TV news, public lectures and ceremonies and
the like), the deferential speech level is predominantly chosen over the other
speech levels, as alluded to in Chapter 5 (but as mentioned in that chapter,
the alternation between the deferential and polite levels in public speech
may be dictated by information status as well). In these situations, the speaker
is not addressing individual hearers but talking to the audience as a whole.
Thus the speaker’s wish to hold the audience’s attention, not the social
distance between them, may play a more important role in the selection of
the speech level. The speaker has no way of ascertaining the social status of
every individual in the audience, anyway; some people in the audience may
have higher or lower social status than, and other people equal social status
to, the speaker. In such unclear or ambiguous situations, it may be safe or
wise to adopt the highest speech level. Hearers with higher social status will
be happy with the speaker’s choice of the correct speech level, whereas
hearers with equal or lower social status will be ‘flattered’ by being spoken
to at the highest speech level. Moreover, the situation will probably be best
served by the deferential speech level, because the speaker is literally out-
numbered by the audience, the possible disparity in social status between
them notwithstanding.
As alluded to in Chapter 4, it is not just the speech level that is dictated by
the medium of language and the formality of situations. The choice of words
152
BEYOND SENTENCES
may also depend on these two factors. For instance, Sino-Korean words
tend to be used in formal situations while native Korean words are preferred
in informal situations. Sino-Korean words, in comparison with native Korean
ones, are often regarded as ‘learned’ or even pedantic. For example, in formal
situations, the Sino-Korean words swucok ‘arms and legs’, sillyey ‘example’,
kumnyen ‘this year’ and tongpok ‘winter clothes’ may be used in lieu of the
native Korean words phaltali, poki, olhay and kyewulos, respectively.
As opposed to writing, spoken language – typically in the informal style –
tends to be characterized by certain linguistic properties, i.e. omission and
contraction in particular. In Chapter 5, it was mentioned that role-marking
particles can potentially be omitted, as in (13).
(13) kiho swukcey ha-yss-e?
Keeho homework do-pst-intimate.q
‘Did Keeho do his homework?’
In (13), the subject noun phrase and the object noun phrase appear without
their role-marking particles, i.e. nominative -ka and accusative -lul,
respectively (cf. kiho-ka swukcey-lul ha-yss-e?). There are two important
factors that contribute to the correct understanding of (13), even without
the role-marking particles. First, the verb ha- in (13) expresses a situation
where someone did something (i.e. two participants). Thus the roles of the
noun phrases can easily be inferred from the meaning of the verb alone.
Second, there is a difference in ‘animacy’ between the two noun phrases (i.e.
human versus inanimate). The general knowledge of the world can thus tell
the hearer which of the two noun phrases refers to the doer or to what was
done. People do homework, not the other way round. Thus the natural
interpretation should be that Keeho was the doer and homework was what
was done. Readers will recall from Chapter 5 that the basic subject–object–
verb word order is relied upon in sentences produced without the use of
role-marking particles. In (13), however, because of the obvious difference
in animacy between the two noun phrases (i.e. Keeho versus homework),
it may be possible to use an object–subject–verb order, as in swukcey kiho
ha-yss-e?, the absence of the role-marking particles notwithstanding.
Moreover, in Korean, whatever can be understood from context can also
be omitted. Thus, far more frequently than not, sentences may end up with
verbs and nothing else, as exemplified in the short dialogue in (14).
(14)
Speaker A: kiho-ka ssu-te-n khomphyuthe-ka
Keeho-nom use-retrospective-rel computer-nom
eti ka-ss-e?
where go-pst-intimate.q
‘Where is the computer that Keeho used?’
153
BEYOND SENTENCES
Speaker B: pely-ess-eyo
throw-pst-polite.s
‘(I) threw (it) away.’
Speaker B’s response consists of a single verb alone. This is made possible
by the following factors. First, Speaker A’s question concerns the location
of the computer that Keeho used previously; in replying to Speaker A’s
question, therefore, Speaker B does not have to say explicitly what it was
that was thrown away (i.e. omission of the object noun phrase). Second,
Speaker B does not have to say explicitly who threw it away either (i.e.
omission of the subject noun phrase), because it cannot be Speaker A. If
Speaker A had done so, Speaker A would not have asked the question in the
first place. Speaker A can also understand correctly from Speaker B’s answer
that it was Speaker B, not anyone else, who threw the computer away,
because Speaker B would otherwise have said explicitly who it was that did
so (e.g. if Keeho had thrown it away, Speaker B would have replied: kiho-ka
pely-ess-eyo ‘Keeho threw (it) away’).
Although expressions can be freely omitted in Korean (informal) speech,
verbs tend not to be omitted (although they can be under highly limited
circumstances). Instead they are almost always retained, to the effect that
many sentences may consist of verbs only. There are two good reasons for
this. First, as discussed with respect to (13), the verb describes the relationship
between the participants in the event or situation. Thus it is crucial for the
purpose of determining the relationship between omitted noun phrases, for
example. If noun phrases instead were retained, it would be impossible to
ascertain their relationship. For example, if only two noun phrases, the boy
and the dog were given, one would not be able to determine the relationship
between them. If, on the other hand, the verb hit were given, one could infer
that there are two participants in the event described and also their rela-
tionship, i.e. the hitter and the hittee. Moreover, if these two participants are
understood from context, which is often the case, which was the hitter or the
hittee can also be inferred, i.e. the boy as the hitter and the dog as the hittee.
(If, however, the verb bit were given, the roles would be reversed, the dog as
the biter and the boy as the bitee.) Second, the verb carries the speaker’s
level of deference towards the hearer, among other things. For example, in
Speaker B’s reply in (14), the verb is marked by the polite speech level ending.
If the verb were omitted, there would be no way to indicate the speaker’s
level of deference towards the hearer. In Korean, this is unthinkable. For
this reason, the verb is rarely deleted. This is further demonstrated in (15).
(15)
Speaker A: sensayng-nim mosi-ko w-ass-ni?
teacher-hon accompany.humble-and come-pst-plain.q
‘(Did you) accompany the teacher (here)?’